LAWS(MAD)-1985-12-10

T S V HARI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

Decided On December 04, 1985
T.S.V.HARI Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHEPAUK, MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a Writ Petition which has been filed by a journalist, when the process of selection of candidates to the M.B.A. Course in the Departments of Management Studies of the University of Madras, was under way. He has averred in his petition that respondents 2 and 3, who are Professor and Mead of the Department of Management Studies and Reader, Department of Management Studies, University of Madras, respectively, were involved in grave irregularities in July, 1979 when admissions to the same Department were being made. His case was that in spite of these two persons being earlier involved in irregularities they continued to associate with the selection of candidates and, therefore, the Selection Committee could not be said to be an impartial Selection Committee. Therefore, the appellant had asked for a stay of the selection of the respective candidates.

(2.) The learned Judge, who heard this petition, declined to entertain the petition taking the view that merely because there were discrepancies earlier noticed in 1979 and especially when these discrepancies were rectified, there is no ground to interfere. The writ petition having been dismissed, the petitioner has filed this appeal.

(3.) At the hearing of the appeal the appellant brought to our notice the minutes of the Selection Committee constituted for selecting full-time M.B.A. students, held at the Department of Management Studies on 21.7.1979. This Committee consisted of three persons. Respondent No.2, who is the Head of the Department of Management Studies was a Member of the said Committee, The Committee found that marks of certain candidates were erased and changed by someone other than the respective Committee Members. The marks were earlier given by the Committee Members. The minutes disclosed the names and the hall ticket numbers of the respective students as well as the marks allotted to them and the changed marks. The shocking irregularity of using eraser and change of marks in respect of certain students is referred to in paragraph 2 of the report of the Committee, which reads as follows: